Short Time Gap Between Last Seen and Death, Non-Explanation by Accused Seals Guilt: Allahabad High Court

“Section 106 Evidence Act shifts burden to the accused when they were last seen with deceased”— In a verdict that reaffirms the doctrine of last seen together under criminal jurisprudence, the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of three accused persons—Ashok Kumar, Gore @ Ujagar Singh, and Ramdas—for the 1983 murder of a tractor driver, Govind, whose body was later found strangled and dumped in a canal. The Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Sandeep Jain held that the accused failed to discharge their burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, given the narrow time gap between Govind being last seen alive with them and his time of death.

“The time gap between the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused and his estimated time of death was just 2.5 hours. The accused were bound to explain the circumstances under which they parted ways with the deceased. Their silence or false explanation becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances,” the Court ruled.

The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 1996, challenging the 1996 conviction under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas Act), Etawah, observing that "the prosecution has succeeded in proving all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt against the accused."

"The presence of the accused during sale of the tractor points to complicity—Not being a registered owner is no defence"

The case, pending since the early 1980s, revolved around the mysterious disappearance of Govind, a tractor driver, last seen alive with Ashok Kumar and two others on 9 April 1983 at around 8:30 PM. He was later found dead the following day, floating in a canal in Mainpuri district, with post-mortem confirming strangulation as the cause of death. The forensic opinion pegged the death at around 11 PM on 9 April, just a couple of hours after the deceased was seen driving the tractor with the accused seated behind him.

The crux of the prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, with pivotal reliance on:

• ‘Last seen’ theory: PW-1 (father) and PW-3 (sister) testified seeing the deceased leave with the accused. PW-2, an independent witness, saw the trio again with Govind near Maman village around 8:30 PM.
• Recovery of misappropriated property: The tractor (URB-7911) and trolley were sold by Akil Ahmed in the presence of accused Ashok Kumar at Sonipat and Meerut, respectively. PW-8 and PW-9, independent purchasers, confirmed Ashok’s presence at the time of the transaction.
• Bricks loaded by deceased: 1000 bricks purchased from a kiln by Ashok (receipt in his name) were later found buried inside Ramdas’s house, further indicating the effort to conceal material links to the crime.
• Identification evidence: Gore and Ramdas were identified in jail test parades and again in court by PW-1 and PW-2.

The High Court was particularly scathing about the failure of the accused to explain these damning circumstances in their statements under Section 313 CrPC:

“Once the prosecution proved that the deceased was last seen alive with the accused and his death occurred shortly after, the burden shifted to the accused to explain when, where and how they parted company. Their non-explanation completes the chain,” the Court said.

“Identification delay not fatal unless prejudice shown”—Court rejects defence objections

Addressing the defence argument that delay in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) vitiated its evidentiary value, the Court clarified that TIPs are only corroborative, not substantive, and the key witnesses correctly identified the accused again in court, satisfying legal requirements.

“Even a single witness identifying the accused, if found credible, suffices. The accused did not cross-examine the Magistrate or IO on this point. Hence, they cannot claim benefit of doubt on this score,” the Court ruled, citing Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 4 SCC 312.

It also rejected the argument that since the tractor and trolley were sold by another individual (Akil Ahmed), Ashok's involvement was not proven:

“The presence of Ashok Kumar during the transaction, his silence on how his tractor reached Akil, and his motive to sell through a proxy to avoid identification, all point to a carefully orchestrated disposal of evidence,” the Court held.

“Concealing bricks by burying them inside the house shows guilty mind”—Circumstances not explained

The Court rejected the claim that since the bricks were not stolen, their recovery from Ramdas’s house was immaterial. Rather, it observed that:

“The concealment of the bricks purchased just before the murder, buried beneath sugarcane leaves and soil, demonstrates an intent to erase all links to the crime. It reinforces the overall chain,” the Bench stated.

No Delay in Lodging FIR—Father’s Conduct Natural

While the defence attempted to highlight a 3-day delay in lodging the FIR, the Court held that the complainant’s initial search for his missing son was a natural response. The FIR was formally lodged on 15 April 1983, but the written complaint was submitted earlier on 12 April, immediately after the father identified his son’s dead body.

“Given the trauma of a missing child and the eventual discovery of the dead body, a short delay—especially when substantiated with genuine search efforts—does not cast a shadow over the prosecution case,” the Bench held.

“Complete chain of evidence leaves no room for innocence”—Section 106 invoked with full force

Relying heavily on Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar (2022) 11 SCC 800 and Ram Gopal v. State of M.P. (2023) 5 SCC 534, the Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence:

“Once the ‘last seen’ theory is established and the time gap is short, the burden squarely shifts on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain facts within their special knowledge. Their failure forms an additional incriminating link.”

Appeal Dismissed—Convicts Ordered to Surrender

In conclusion, the Court held that “the cumulative effect of all circumstances leads to only one logical conclusion—that the accused, and none else, committed the murder of Govind.”

The appeals were dismissed. Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas, currently on bail, were directed to surrender immediately, failing which coercive measures shall be initiated by the trial court. The judgment of the trial court dated 12 September 1996 was affirmed in full.

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025